Waterbury evening Democrat., 1887-12-21
CITY HALL INSURANCE.
The Towns Suit Against the City Begun
 in the District Court.

in the District Court.
 The suit of the town of Waterbury against the city of Waterbury, to recover $7OO for the city's share of maintaining in- surance on City hall, was begun before Judge Bradstreet, in the district court this morning.
 The plaintiff claims that at the request of the defendant, had the City hal1 of which the plaintiff and defendant are joint time, at another for 5000. The plain tiff further claims that the cost of such in surance was $1, 712. 50. of which the defend ant has paid $500, and neglects and refus- es to pay the balance, and that the defend ant is bound to pay $900 to the plaintiff as it's share of said expenses. The defendant says that on February 7, of this year, the plaintiff was indebted to the defend ant, to the sum of $426. 24 on account of sewer assessment upon the plaintiff for 8 sewer on Grand street, with interest from September 15, 1884. The plaintiff claims that pretended assessment for laying said sewer on Grand street, did not lay pro portionate and reasonable part of the ex- pense, and was in violation of the city charter and was invalid and hunconstitu- tional. The defendant claims that the plaintiff did not insure the City hall at the request of the defendant and if the con- mittee on public lands and buildings re- luested such order, it was without due au- thority.
 Attorney Burpee appeared for the plain tiff and City Attorney Terry for the de- fendant. The first witness called was City Clerk Kilduff and immediately upon his taking the stand the court took recess to 2P: m. r The court came in at 2:15 p. m. MT l,,F oI fho 7.ocor1c 0f tho doings of the Court of Common Council con corning the appointment of a committee on public lands and buildings from 1873 to and including 1887.
 Attorney Terry wanted Attorney Burpee to amend his bill of particulars so as to show what the town paid in 1885 and 1886. MT Burpee said that in December 1885 the town paid $900 and in November 1886, they paid the balance.
 Attorney Terry asked MT Kilduff if be- tween 1885 and 1886 there was anything on the records of the proceedings to show that the Court of Common Council had given the Committee on Public Lands and Buildings any authority. Witness replied in the negative. He referred to the man ner in which the committee reported to the council, on the repairing of City hall and concerning the erection of flag staff.
 Attorney Burpee asked if there was any thing on the records to show that the Com mon Council had given or taken any au- thority away from the Committee on Pub lie Lands and Buildings. Attorney Terry objected to this as having nothing to do with the case in question, but MT Burpee held that if the defendant had the right to show that the committee had not been clothed with any authority during 1885-6 the plaintiff had right to show that the authority of the committee had not been deprived by the council. MT Terry held that they being servants of the Common Council their services die with the Com Council. When the council ceased to ex- ist the committee ceased to exist The law yers were fighting on this point at the time of going to press.